Apple's updated App Store terms could kill app promotion services

A revision to the terms and conditions of Apple's App Store has sparked concern that the company could stomp out a side market of applications that promote other apps.

The change to Apple's terms and conditions was highlighted on Monday by Pocketgamer.biz, which noted that clause 2.25 "appears to give Apple carte blanche to put any app that promotes titles from a different developer out of action."

The new addition to the App Store terms states that "Apps that display Apps other than your own for purchase or promotion in a manner similar to or confusing with the App Store will be rejected."

Exactly what constitutes "confusing" promotion of applications to Apple remains to be seen, but the change has caused concern that some businesses built on promoting applications, like "FreeAppADay," could be affected.

Monday's report claimed it's "already accepted" that Apple wants to restrict app promotion services in an effort to "maintain the legitimacy of the App Store charts." However, for now, app promotion services appear unaffected by the change in terms and conditions.

This year, Apple has made considerable changes to the iOS App Store in an effort to improve navigation and discoverability. Most notably, the App Store received a new look with the launch of iOS 6 last month.

Search results have also been overhauled thanks to Apple's acquisition of app search engine Chomp. When searching for options on the App Store, downloads are now shown in tiles rather than simply a list.

... Exactly what constitutes "confusing" promotion of applications to Apple remains to be seen, but the change has caused concern that some businesses built on promoting applications, like "FreeAppADay," could be affected. ...

I have no problem with this. Discouraging junk apps is a win for users. Just because someone built a business on some basis, doesn't mean that they have some sort of inalienable right to it, and certainly not in someone else's store.

I have no problem with this. Discouraging junk apps is a win for users. Just because someone built a business on some basis, doesn't mean that they have some sort of inalienable right to it, and certainly not in someone else's store.

I agree. This is great news for consumers and will really drive iPhone 5 adoption forward.

Well, they only say %u201Cin a similar manner.%u201D That%u2019s not quite the same as carte blanche, although I can see that it would worry makers of alternative App Store front-ends.

So, don%u2019t pretend to BE the App Store or get close enough to be confusing: simplicity is key to the App Store%u2019s success, and Apple doesn%u2019t want users confronted with a bunch of %u201Csort of similar%u201D storefronts, not all of which necessarily share the same security.

I%u2019m personally a fan of AppShopper (although I%u2019d be OK using the site instead of the app itself%u2014each has advantages). I can see how AppShopper could confuse the app-buying process for some, BUT I can also see how AppShopper could be re-styled/re-organized to have a more unique identity and dodge these terms. We%u2019ll have to see how Apple applies this.

I would bet that the author can't actually find anyone who is "concerned" about this development with the exception of the scammers that use/make/promote these apps in the first place.

Personally, I think this is "baby steps" and that they should go a lot farther. There are huge *categories* of apps containing thousands of entries that shouldn't be allowed in the store at all. The chief positive point of the "walled garden" is curation. They need to curate a lot more, and a lot more harshly IMO.

Looks like punctuation is having issues at AI today here in the forums. The apostrophe seems to be having an especially bad time of it :) An app that does nothing but pimp other people's apps. I think we have a word for that. It's websites. And magazines. Blogs. Facebook rants and diatribes. Tweets. Do we really need junk apps w/more ads for people's apps?

I would bet that the author can't actually find anyone who is "concerned" about this development with the exception of the scammers that use/make/promote these apps in the first place.
Personally, I think this is "baby steps" and that they should go a lot farther. There are huge *categories* of apps containing thousands of entries that shouldn't be allowed in the store at all. The chief positive point of the "walled garden" is curation. They need to curate a lot more, and a lot more harshly IMO.

I have no problem with this. Discouraging junk apps is a win for users. Just because someone built a business on some basis, doesn't mean that they have some sort of inalienable right to it, and certainly not in someone else's store.

I would say it depends on who they target with it. It looks like people are assuming that these are 'junk apps', or created generally with some kind of underhanded interest in mind, but there are also apps like AppShopper which could be interpreted as existing in violation of this new rule. It is clear that AppShopper hopes to make money off the Apple ecosystem, but I'm not sure if any particularly meaningful number of people would confuse it with Apple's service, and it does provide some unique services to people. I imagine many use it to track apps looking for sales. I like to use it to track apps which, for one reason or another (maybe they didn't support the Retina screen), didn't offer everything I wanted when I first stumbled across them.

This depends on how Apple chooses to enforce this rule, but I'd like to see more before I praise the change.